Effectiveness of Epiduroscopy for Patients with Failed Back Surgery Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Low-back or leg pain in patients suffering from failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) is often severe, having a major impact on functionality and quality of life. Despite conservative and surgical treatments, pain can be persistent. An alternative treatment option is epiduroscopy, a minimally invasive procedure based on mechanical adhesiolysis of epidural fibrosis. As epidural fibrosis is speculated to be a major contributor in the pathophysiologic process of FBSS, this review evaluates the effectiveness of epiduroscopy in FBSS patients. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases. Critical appraisal was performed using validated tools. Meta-analysis was performed using generic inverse variance analysis. RESULTS: From the 286 identified articles, nine studies were included. The visual analogue scale (VAS) average was 7.6 at baseline, 4.5 at 6, and 4.3 at 12 months. The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) average was 61.7% at baseline, 42.8% at 6, and 46.9% at 12 months. An average of 49% of patients experienced significant pain relief at 6 and 37% at 12 months. Meta-analysis showed a pooled VAS mean difference of 3.4 (2.6 to 4.1; 95% confidence interval [CI]) and 2.8 (1.6 to 4.0; 95% CI) and pooled ODI mean difference of 19.4% (12.5 to 26.4%; 95% CI) and 19.8% (13.8 to 25.9%; 95% CI) at 6 and 12 months, respectively. CONCLUSION: Current literature demonstrates a clinically relevant reduction in pain and disability scores at 6 to 12 months after mechanical adhesiolysis in FBSS patients. The quality of evidence is moderate, and the level of recommendation is weak. Practitioners should consider the benefits of epiduroscopy after weighing the risks for individual patients with FBSS.

Different Approaches to Ultrasound-guided Thoracic Paravertebral Block: An Illustrated Review.

Given the fast development and increasing clinical relevance of ultrasound guidance for thoracic paravertebral blockade, this review article strives (1) to provide comprehensive information on thoracic paravertebral space anatomy, tailored to the needs of a regional anesthesia practitioner, (2) to interpret ultrasound images of the thoracic paravertebral space using cross-sectional anatomical images that are matched in location and plane, and (3) to briefly describe and discuss different ultrasound-guided approaches to thoracic paravertebral blockade. To illustrate the pertinent anatomy, high-resolution photographs of anatomical cross-sections are used. By using voxel anatomy, it is possible to visualize the needle pathway of different approaches in the same human specimen. This offers a unique presentation of this complex anatomical region and is inherently more realistic than anatomical drawings.

Intraneural or extraneural: diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound assessment for localizing low-volume injection.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: When one is performing ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve blocks, it is common to inject a small amount of fluid to confirm correct placement of the needle tip. If an intraneural needle tip position is detected, the needle can then be repositioned to prevent injection of a large amount of local anesthetic into the nerve. However, it is unknown if anesthesiologists can accurately discriminate intraneural and extraneural injection of small volumes. Therefore, this study was conducted to determine the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound assessment using a criterion standard and to compare experts and novices in ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia. METHODS: A total of 32 ultrasound-guided infragluteal sciatic nerve blocks were performed on 21 cadaver legs. The injections were targeted to be intraneural (n = 18) or extraneural (n = 14), and 0.5 mL of methylene blue 1% was injected. Cryosections of the nerve and surrounding tissue were assessed by a blinded investigator as "extraneural" or "intraneural." Ultrasound video clips of the injections were reviewed by 10 blinded observers (5 experts, 5 novices) independently who scored each injection as either "intraneural," "extraneural," or "undetermined." RESULTS: The mean sensitivity of experts and novices was measured to be 0.84 (0.80-0.88) and 0.65 (0.60-0.71), respectively (P = 0.006), whereas mean specificity was 0.97 (0.94-0.98) and 0.98 (0.96-0.99) (P = 0.53). CONCLUSIONS: Discrimination of intraneural or extraneural needle tip position based on an injection of 0.5mL is possible, but even experts missed 1 of 6 intraneural injections. In novices, the sensitivity of assessment was significantly lower, highlighting the need for focused education.